Saying Goodbye

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

I didn't expect to see insults from you, that's why I was checking. I was going to be surprised if it was meant to be an insult.

When it comes to what's acceptable for the government to put its grimey hands all over and muck up, that list is pretty black and white. It specifically says in the Constitution that if the constitution doesn't specifically say the federal government has the power to do something, that power goes back to the state and the people. That's black and white. There is no power awarded to the government in the constitution making healthcare or college education a right of the people. "Shall not be infringed" in the second amendment is black and white. Our government has been taking small steps at a time to abuse it's power and infringe upon our rights for way to long. It's gone virtually uncontested and much of it is truly unconstitutional. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of hearing about people who support those unconstitutional activities. Anything that's unconstitutional is typically a crime or at least a violation of our rights. When you're violating our rights, that's anti-American. The American government was founded to preserve and protect those rights that all people have, not "rights" that are awarded or given out as a privilege which can be taken away.

Choosing the path of Marxism is anti-American...when the policies of the presidential candidates sound like they were designed with the Communist Manifesto as their foundation and play book, that's anti-American and black and white.

Thanks for checking before reacting. I hate to see things escalate over a misunderstanding.

MOO is that the "Marxist/Socialist" label is too easy to apply when you are expressing and defending your own opinions and while rebutting others. Opinions will also vary as to where the Black & White line is. Opinions are what this forum is for after all.

I'm fairly Libertarian in my views but not exclusively. Which to me means "express whatever you want but don't always expect me to agree with you, no matter how hard you argue the point".

To agree with D above, my views used to be much more unyielding when I was younger. Over the years I've found that there is something to be gleaned even from views contrary to my own. They may either help solidify my views or occasionally cause me to at least think more about some issues, even if I don't always act.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Delija

Two quick questions....do you think I "follow" you around? I don't even recall exchanging any opinions with you prior to this week (if I did, then clearly they were not in the least bit memorable)....and considering you have more than twice as many posts (close to three times as many) in one year than I have in three and a half years it seems pretty obvious that I've gone out of my way to avoid wasting time with anyone so "dogmatic". (BTW, congratulations on probably having the highest average of posts per day here....must be nice to have so much free time....I'm retired and don't have that kind of time). Our profiles say that for every one time I post, you post nine times. You really feel you have that much worthwhile wisdom to share?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present exhibit 1A. Here are the attempts at insulting and attacking me. Actually, there is a member with nearly 3 times the daily post count as I do. I present that instead of discussing the issues, we result to insulting the value of my posts rather than discussing the content of my posts. You probably don't remember any of our conversations because you're too busy talking down to everyone else, who apparently, in your mind is not worthy of discussing anything with you.

You know what else is laughable? We all have the same 24 hours in a day. You do what you want to do, I do what I want. I, on average, spend less time in the bathroom as someone old enough to be retired. I get around faster and I must get things done quicker than you do. Maybe in my younger age, I'm simply more efficient at getting what I need to get done during the day and can afford to participate on the forum more than you. I'm also seeking the services of medical professionals much less frequently than the elderly. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I didn't say you specifically follow me around, but I have seen you and FrankRizzo battle frequently and the situation is typically the same...insults and personal attacks and 10,000 character responses in an attempt to overwhelm everyone.

Originally Posted by Delija

I don't argue or try to "debate" or even discuss differences of opinions with brick walls. It goes nowhere. I make an exception for FrankRizzo because he's at least entertaining, intelligent and fun to "argue" with..he seems to spend as much time "researching" his posts (and what other people may have said years ago) as you do in just hitting your keyboard......he thinks he's debating when he's not, and I always get a kick out of that. On the other hand, you just seem to state your opinions and not bother with all the "research"...which is fine...it's what I do myself. Because I don't see any of this as being important enough to take that seriously. The problem I see with you is just your tunnel vision viewpoint of the world. You really need to live some life before you carve your opinions in stone. It seems awfully clear that you have much living to do. Life comes from experience, not reading Ann Coulter, etc.

Again, more of the same drivel. You use my statement about one line from a book I haven't even completely read as a excuse to attack my views and comment about where experience comes from...laughable. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You constantly put words in people's mouths and here you are contradicting yourself. You said I don't do my research, yet you try to use the fact that I'm bringing up a point from a book as an excuse to attack me. So, I don't do my research, but yet you're mocking my experience level because I quoted one line from a book. Try again partner.

You call everyone who stands firm in their beliefs and disagrees with you a brick wall. You insult them.

You can poke fun at my age. You can toss out shots because I choose to form my opinions and views based on principles more than just blown in the wind experiences. Who has a true foundation to fall back on? Who has a belief system that is founded on more than just "experiences?" Who can state why their views are the way they are without have to cite "personal experience."

It's funny, you must not like my sources of where my research comes from. I guess the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, you know, those somewhat important documents to the history of this country are of no value to you and that's why you agree with Etta when she spews her anti-Americanisms all over the place. How many of her posts are outside of the political view? 27 out of the last 500 posts = 5.4% in about 1 month. 1 post in the Non-XD discussion area and 26 in the Chatter Box. The rest are all PV posts. Why don't you harp on Etta for posting nearly 4 times as much as you do and doing almost 95% of it in areas of the forum that are not even related to the subject of this forum?

Originally Posted by Delija

Secondly...do you think I am "anti-American"? And if so, I'd sincerely like to hear your reasons.

TIA

Peace,
D.

I don't see a whole lot of your views. I see more of you insulting and talking down to people. I see more of you being a miserable human being with nothing better to do than to constantly criticize others without being able to state your own views or have the ability to back them up. I see you as more of an arrogant pest on this forum than anything that could even mistakenly be recognized as a good contributor to the content of the discussions at hand. But then again, you'll have some reason to shoot this down even though it's based on my experience (just like everything you're telling me I need more of).


Peace.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Thanks for checking before reacting. I hate to see things escalate over a misunderstanding.

MOO is that the "Marxist/Socialist" label is too easy to apply when you are expressing and defending your own opinions and while rebutting others. Opinions will also vary as to where the Black & White line is. Opinions are what this forum is for after all.

I'm fairly Libertarian in my views but not exclusively. Which to me means "express whatever you want but don't always expect me to agree with you, no matter how hard you argue the point".

To agree with D above, my views used to be much more unyielding when I was younger. Over the years I've found that there is something to be gleaned even from views contrary to my own. They may either help solidify my views or occasionally cause me to at least think more about some issues, even if I don't always act.

I agree, but as far as the Marxist labels, if you read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to the policies of some of our Presidential-hopefuls, it's quite clear they've taken parts of it and incorporated it.

Here are just a few issues we see being discussed as things that will happen certain candidates are elected:

Denial of religion or the existence of God
Denial of property rights - look how NYC is trying to get every citizen in NY State to pay extra taxes to fund the public transportation in NYC. Even if you don't live in NYC or even use the services, you're still responsible for funding them.
Denial of firearms rights - do I need to say anything?

Denial of freedom of speech - McCain Feingold

Denial of free enterprise and commercialism - Nationalized healthcare, nationalized energy, going after companies who make too much profit
Elimination of the upper class - taxing the rich because "they can afford it"


EDIT: I'm open to debate and discussing the issues, I thoroughly enjoy it. I enjoy hearing from the other side of the coin, so to say, but I only enjoy it when the insults and egotistical bullsh*t is left out. If someone knows the issues and simply believes something different, fine. I can't stand when someone who doesn't know the issues wants to debate.

If you wrote a survey with general questions on the issues and left out the words "republican, democrat, conservative, liberal" and had people answer those questions based solely on the details without trying to identify a side to align themselves with, I think you'd find the majority, especially college students who think they're democrats and liberals, would in fact be libertarian/conservative. I think you see more liberal and democrat views from people who don't understand or know the issues than you do from conservatives. Liberalism, as it is today, is a fad. My sister and sister-in-law are both graduation seniors from college, one in downtown Philadelphia, the other just outside of Philly. Both are registered democrat but neither really support the policies either democratic candidate is campaigning on. I talked to my sister the day of the PA primary and I brought up something about Michelle Obama. She said, "Who's Michelle Obama?" Neither of them took the time to find out what they were voting on or who they were voting for. I had a discussion with my sister-in-law about it and she said she doesn't like to talk about politics because she doesn't have the time to do the research or find out where people stand on the issues. To me, that kind of voting is irresponsible and is comparable to firing a gun without knowing what's beyond your target or even what your target is in the first place. How can you cast a vote to elect someone to be your leader when you don't know who that person is or what they stand for? My parents are the same way and confessed about it. They simply don't make it a priority.

It's tough to truly debate the issues with people like that and I find it's more comparable to "missionary" work and "converting" people. But at the same time, it's not converting people because those 4 people all have conservative views, they just didn't know who represented what side of the issues. It's really helping people figure out who best represents what they believe in.

Debating with people who know what the issues are and why they believe in them is fun as long as it remains civil.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

I agree, but as far as the Marxist labels, if you read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to the policies of some of our Presidential-hopefuls, it's quite clear they've taken parts of it and incorporated it.

Here are just a few issues we see being discussed as things that will happen certain candidates are elected:

Denial of religion or the existence of God
Denial of property rights - look how NYC is trying to get every citizen in NY State to pay extra taxes to fund the public transportation in NYC. Even if you don't live in NYC or even use the services, you're still responsible for funding them.
Denial of firearms rights - do I need to say anything?

Denial of freedom of speech - McCain Feingold

Denial of free enterprise and commercialism - Nationalized healthcare, nationalized energy, going after companies who make too much profit
Elimination of the upper class - taxing the rich because "they can afford it"


EDIT: I'm open to debate and discussing the issues, I thoroughly enjoy it. I enjoy hearing from the other side of the coin, so to say, but I only enjoy it when the insults and egotistical bullsh*t is left out. If someone knows the issues and simply believes something different, fine. I can't stand when someone who doesn't know the issues wants to debate.

If you wrote a survey with general questions on the issues and left out the words "republican, democrat, conservative, liberal" and had people answer those questions based solely on the details without trying to identify a side to align themselves with, I think you'd find the majority, especially college students who think they're democrats and liberals, would in fact be libertarian/conservative. I think you see more liberal and democrat views from people who don't understand or know the issues than you do from conservatives. Liberalism, as it is today, is a fad. My sister and sister-in-law are both graduation seniors from college, one in downtown Philadelphia, the other just outside of Philly. Both are registered democrat but neither really support the policies either democratic candidate is campaigning on. I talked to my sister the day of the PA primary and I brought up something about Michelle Obama. She said, "Who's Michelle Obama?" Neither of them took the time to find out what they were voting on or who they were voting for. I had a discussion with my sister-in-law about it and she said she doesn't like to talk about politics because she doesn't have the time to do the research or find out where people stand on the issues. To me, that kind of voting is irresponsible and is comparable to firing a gun without knowing what's beyond your target or even what your target is in the first place. How can you cast a vote to elect someone to be your leader when you don't know who that person is or what they stand for? My parents are the same way and confessed about it. They simply don't make it a priority.

It's tough to truly debate the issues with people like that and I find it's more comparable to "missionary" work and "converting" people. But at the same time, it's not converting people because those 4 people all have conservative views, they just didn't know who represented what side of the issues. It's really helping people figure out who best represents what they believe in.

Debating with people who know what the issues are and why they believe in them is fun as long as it remains civil.

Liberty zone has a good analysis of the Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Liberty zone has a good analysis of the Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

I'm not at all saying we're not already subject to those measures to a degree, but we all know they will get worse depending on who is elected as the next president.

These are issues I already have with the federal government and why I want all presidential candidates to stop talking about what they're going to do. I want them all to tell me what they're going to undo and repeal.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

I'm not at all saying we're not already subject to those measures to a degree, but we all know they will get worse depending on who is elected as the next president.

These are issues I already have with the federal government and why I want all presidential candidates to stop talking about what they're going to do. I want them all to tell me what they're going to undo and repeal.

I hear you completely!! But I have no idea if things will become worse because of who is elected.

What we will loose will not happen overnight, and hopefully will not happen without struggle and strife. Of this I am confident. We most likely, as a nation, will turnover even more states rights and individual powers to the Federal Government as the nation evolves. We are afterall a young nation in the eyes of others, and also in the eyes of some of our own.

Do I agree with this mentality ? NO!
Is it stoppable ? I'm glad it sounds like we will both try. Our methods might differ, but I do believe we have a common bottomline.

Real change needs to occur. That does not mean additional BS. It means a transferance to a outlined form of government as was intended.

The G D piece of paper as some have claimed it to be called ...... Makes sense Use it!

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I hear you completely!! But I have no idea if things will become worse because of who is elected.

What we will loose will not happen overnight, and hopefully will not happen without struggle and strife. Of this I am confident. We most likely, as a nation, will turnover even more states rights and individual powers to the Federal Government as the nation evolves. We are afterall a young nation in the eyes of others, and also in the eyes of some of our own.

Do I agree with this mentality ? NO!
Is it stoppable ? I'm glad it sounds like we will both try. Our methods might differ, but I do believe we have a common bottomline.

Real change needs to occur. That does not mean additional BS. It means a transferance to a outlined form of government as was intended.

The G D piece of paper as some have claimed it to be called ...... Makes sense Use it!

There's a reason why the claim was made the a revolution every 200 years is a healthy practice. We've gone well over 200 now and haven't had one, but if things continue, who knows.

One thing is for sure, 2 of the candidates are promising to raise taxes and not renew the Bush tax cuts. 2 of them are pushing for nationalized healthcare even thought the government can't get a computer program to work to conduct the upcoming census. 2 of them are promising to declare defeat in the military conflicts we're involved with. The only one of those that won't be relatively overnight is the healthcare.

I think we both have the same direction and methods...simply, go back to the constitution as it was written and use the enumerated powers as defined. Stop all this make it up as we go crap and twisting the constitution until it says what we want it to say. Stop this "living document" crap.

[Frenchy]

To agree with D above, my views used to be much more unyielding when I was younger. Over the years I've found that there is something to be gleaned even from views contrary to my own. They may either help solidify my views or occasionally cause me to at least think more about some issues, even if I don't always act.

Advancing age is the great modifier...

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Stop this "living document" crap.

Yep!!

They (don't ask who. It's just something I've heard) also say most democracies become less stable at 200 years.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Advancing age is the great modifier...

That's for sure. Becoming a parent didn't hurt either!